alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,636
<SECURITIES>                                    16,140
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,351
<ALLOWANCES>                                       317
<INVENTORY>                                      5,571
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,027
<PP&E>                                          21,475
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,487
<BONDS>                                          1,063
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           284
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,244
<SALES>                                         69,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,570
<CGS>                                           42,592
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    29
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,742
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,621
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,121
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,121
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.81
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Intrac, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas A. Hamilton,
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Douglas A. Hamilton
----------------------------------
Douglas A. Hamilton
Chief Operating Officer and Chief
Financial Officer

March 28, 2005



         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Intrac, Inc. and will be retained by Intrac, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
----

Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-367/06)

(2006/C 261/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, agent)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 23 September 2005.

----

(1)OJ L 235, 23.09.2003, p. 10 - 21

----
Before the Second Division,

April 4, 1955

No. 58921.

protest 218862-K (Norfolk).

#### Trans-Ocean Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is composed of rush and is not of grass nor of rice straw; that merchandise of like character is now being assessed at 20 percent under said paragraph 1021, as modified, *supra-,*and that the termination of the said General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with respect to concessions therein initially negotiated with China (T. D. 52587), Insofar as said paragraph 1021 is concerned, related only to floor coverings of *330grass or of rice straw. Upon the agreed statement of facts, the claim of the plaintiif was sustained.
Exhibit
32(b)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Indiana Michigan Power Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K (the “Report”) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Brian
X. Tierney, the chief financial officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/ Brian X.
Tierney


Brian X.
Tierney


Chief
Financial Officer








February
26, 2010








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Case 2:05-cv-05934-MK Document 9 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 55890.

protests 169165-K, etc. (New York).

#### W. Droin c/o Swiss Bank Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currencies involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currencies of the invoices, except as to entry 764394, covered by protest 143436-K, which was abandoned, should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2674, dated October 19, 1949.
Order filed February 1 2 , 2020



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 20

- 00039

- CV

__________
IN RE JERRY VENEGAS

Original Mandamus Proceeding

O R D E R Relator, Jerry Venegas , has filed in this court an emergency motion for temporary relief in conjunction with an original mandamus proceeding. These
matters relate to a first amended motion to transfer venue in a petition to modify parent

- child relationship filed in Cause No. B

- 124,983 in the 446th District Court of Ector County
, Texas. Relator complains that the Honorable Sara Kate Billingsley has a ministerial duty to transfer venue of the petition to modify to Harris County
where the child resides
, but has failed to rule on the motion to tr ansfer venue and has set a hearing for February 13, 2020
, on the real party in interest’s motion for temporary orders. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10(b), this court grants the motion for temporary relief and hereby orders that the tem porary2

orders hearing scheduled for February 13, 2020, is temporarily stayed pending further order of this court or final disposition of this mandamus proceeding. Furthermore, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4, this court requests that a r esponse to Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus be filed on or before February 24, 2020.

PER CURIAM

February 12 , 2020 Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J. , Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J. 1
Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
Case 2:05-cv-25157-HB Document 7 Filed 10/23/09 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-cv-25157-HB Document 7 Filed 10/23/09 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Aim Smart Corporation (the Company) certify that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  July 22, 2008 By: /s/ Mingli Yao  Mingli Yao, Chief Executive Officer  By: /s/ Yuan Yao  Yuan Yao, Chief Financial Officer
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT&"ARIAL,Regular"		&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2021 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2022-04	&"Arial,Bold"VII VDR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"December 2021
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Francis J. Deasey, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served upon all persons listed below a true and 

correct copy of Defendant, Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company’s Response to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Duty to Defend Against Westchester Surplus Lines 

Insurance Company and Cross Motion for Additional Discovery Pursuant To F.R.Civ.P. 56(f) in 

the above-captioned matter this date by electronic mail to all parties listed below:

CAROL CHOATE CARTY, ESQUIRE

DENNIS J. VALENZA, ESQUIRE

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius

1701 Market Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorney for Plaintiff

HOWARD T. WEIR, III, ESQUIRE

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20004

Attorney for Plaintiff 

FRANCIS P. BURNS, III, ESQ.

Lavin, O’Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio

190 N. Independence Mall West

6

th and Race Streets, Suite 500

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Attorney for Defendant, Evanston Insurance

Company

LUKE QUINLAN, ESQUIRE

L.D. SIMMONS, II, ESQUIRE

Helms, Mulliss & Wicker, PLLC

201 North Tryon Street

P.O. Box 31247

Charlotte, NC 28202

Attorney for Defendant, Evanston Insurance

Company

JOHN C. SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE

Post & Schell, P.C.

1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard

Four Penn Center 

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorney for Defendant, Liberty Insurance

Underwriters

REBECCA WOODS, ESQUIRE

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

815 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20006-4004

Attorney for Continental Insurance Company

ROANLD P. SCHILLER, ESQUIRE

MICHAEL R. CARLSON, ESQUIRE

DLA Piper US LLP

One Liberty Place Suite 4900

1650 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Date: 8-10-07 BY: /s/ Francis J. Deasey (Valid Code FD1214)_________

Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-20 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 1

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 60 Att. 19

Dockets.Justia.com
No. 57972.

protest 218984-K (New York).

#### Enterprise Paper Co. and John H. Faunce N. Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

*446Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cellophane sheets similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56780, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan

Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2661

___________

Genick Bar-Meir, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

North American Die Casting * District of Minnesota.

Association, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 27, 2002

 Filed: December 26, 2002

___________

Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Genick Bar-Meir filed this action against the North American Die Casting

Association (NADCA), requesting an order that the domain name “nadca.org” should

remain with him. NADCA filed counterclaims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 1051 et seq., seeking injunctive relief and damages. We previously affirmed in an

interlocutory appeal the district court’s1

 grant of injunctive relief and summary
2

Magistrate Judge Nelson.

-2-

judgment to NADCA, and we now affirm the remaining pretrial orders2 that Bar-Meir

challenges on appeal.

We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in any of its discovery

rulings. See SDI Operating P’ship v. Neuwirth, 973 F.2d 652, 655 (8th Cir. 1992)

(standard of review). We also hold the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing

to impose the costs of personal service on NADCA, given that Bar-Meir did not show

compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2)(D); or in refusing to

continue a hearing on the summary judgment motion, see Wisland v. Admiral

Beverage Corp., 119 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 1997) (district court is given wide

authority and discretion to manage its caseload), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1112 (1998).

We further hold the district court did not err in denying Bar-Meir’s motion to vacate

the reference to the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). We do not consider

the propriety of the district court’s damages award, as Bar-Meir did not argue the

issue on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (appellant’s brief must contain

contentions on issues presented and reasons for them); Etheridge v. United States,

241 F.3d 619, 622 (8th Cir. 2001) (claims not argued on appeal are abandoned).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in theevent that publications are no longer available from the original publishingagency site. (Historical purposes)

**Title:**  NASA historical data book

 
Volume 1,Volume 2,Volume3, Volume4, Volume5, Volume6, Volume 7

 
SuDoc Number: NAS 1.21:4012/V.-

Item Number: 0830-I (online)

 
CGP system Number: 000564515
A89A1880, A89A2099.

#### THE STATE v. DIXON; and vice versa.

(390 SE2d 600)

Per curiam.

Defendant Dixon, a co-defendant in the same criminal trial which gave rise to *State v. Smith,*193 Ga. App. 831 (389 SE2d 547) (1989), was convicted of 10 counts of armed robbery, three counts of kidnapping, and one count each of aggravated assault, operating an automobile with defective equipment, and improper lane usage. Both the state and Dixon filed appeals following the denial of the latter’s motion for new trial. *Held:*

1. In the present appeal as in *State v. Smith,*supra, the state contends that the trial court erred in merging several of the armed robbery convictions for sentencing purposes on the theory that they had stemmed from the same incident, since each count had involved a different victim. In the *Smith*case, we allowed the state’s appeal and held that the trial court was in error in failing to impose a separate sentence on each of the counts in question. Based on that decision, we hold that the trial court also erred in merging the armed robbery counts at issue in the present case. The resulting sentence is accordingly vacated with direction that the court enter a separate sentence upon each of the defendant’s armed robbery convictions.

2. The state has moved to dismiss the defendant’s appeal on the ground that it was filed a day late. The record discloses that the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal as well as a timely motion for new trial after being sentenced. After the case was docketed in this court, we remanded it to the trial court for a ruling on the motion for new trial, with the stipulation that this disposition constituted “a final and complete resolution of the present appeal in this court but [would] not operate to preclude any future appeal which may be appropriate.” The trial court subsequently denied the motion for new trial by order entered on June 20, 1989. The present appeal was not filed until July 21, 1989. Inasmuch as OCGA § 5-6-38 (a) requires that “[a] notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the appealable decision or judgment complained of,” it follows that the ¿ppeal must be dismissed as untimely. See OCGA § 5-6-48 (b); *Me-*
      *147
      *Kinney v. State,*187 Ga. App. 702 (371 SE2d 196) (1988).

Decided January *2,*1990.

*Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Tracy G. Gladden, Keith C. Martin, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellant.

*William E. Frey,*for appellee.

*Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction in Case No. A89A1880. Appeal dismissed in Case No. A89A2099.*

*Banke, P. J., Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.*
Before the First Division,

March 13, 1946

No. 50939.

#### Protest 120902-K of Barotz Import Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same as the white beads the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867) the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was sustained.
EXHIBIT 4.11

                   PLEDGED SHARE AMENDMENT

     This Pledged Share Amendment, dated as of December 1, 1997, is
delivered pursuant to Section 1 (v) and Section 5 of the Pledge
Agreement referred to below.  The undersigned hereby agrees that this
Pledged Share Amendment may be attached to the Pledge Agreement dated
as of May 26, 1992, between the undersigned and Chemical Bank, as
Trustee (the "Pledge Agreement"; capitalized terms defined therein
being used herein as therein defined), and that the Pledged Notes
listed on this Pledged Share Amendment shall be deemed to be part of
the Pledged Notes and shall become part of the Pledged Collateral and
shall secure all Senior Obligations as provided in the Pledge
Agreement.


               AMERICAN BANKNOTE CORPORATION


               By:  Harvey J. Kesner
               Name:  Harvey J.  Kesner
               Title:  Executive Vice President & General Counsel



                         PLEDGED NOTES


Issuer                  Payee                          Principal Amount



American Bank Note      United States Banknote         $40,000,000.00
Company, Inc.           Corporation (name changed
                        to American Banknote
                        Corporation)

American Bank Note      United States Banknote         $5,300,000.00
Holographics, Inc.      Corporation (name changed
                        to American Banknote
                        Corporation)

Transaction Network     American Banknote Corporation  $1,000,000.00
Plus, Inc. (name changed
to American Banknote Card
Services, Inc.)
# sec6_rsnc_2024

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-08	&"Arial,Bold"&10VI RSNC - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10June 2023
p120854.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0584

Focus Ready Draft 10/18/2012

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ EV

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE:

OTHER USES: 

 

Page 1
p120854.eng

CRSS :

 

 

 

 

Consumer Use: 

SAT (concerns) (10/10/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Related Cases: 

Migration to groundwater: U

PBT rating: P1B1T2 .

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3C

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 

Page 2
p120854.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0584

 

 

Page 3
p120854.eng

 

 

 

 

Page 4
p120854.eng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0584

 

 

Page 5
p120854.eng

 

 

 

 

Page 6
p120854.eng

 

 

 

 

Page 7
2009 TRI Fuel Analysis

 3/08/2010

Black Dog - 1904

Lab No Method Units EG57512

Sample Description BD34 

Coal

Air Dry Loss % 19.71

Moisture, Air Dried Basis % 8.69

Ash, Air Dried Basis % 6.60

Aluminum EPA 200.7 ppm Al 5635

Antimony EPA 200.8 ppm Sb 0.1

Arsenic EPA 200.8 ppm As 0.59

Barium EPA 200.7 ppm Ba 362

Beryllium EPA 200.8 ppm Be -0.3

Cadmium EPA 200.8 ppm Cd -0.3

Calcium EPA 200.7 ppm Ca 8689

Chlorine EPA 300.0 ppm CL 14

Chromium EPA 200.7 ppm Cr -6

Cobalt EPA 200.8 ppm Co 1.60

Copper EPA 200.7 ppm Cu 12

Fluorine EPA 300.0 ppm F 14

Iron EPA 200.7 ppm Fe 2123

Lead EPA 200.8 ppm Pb 3

Magnesium EPA 200.7 ppm Mg 1975

Manganese EPA 200.7 ppm Mn 9

Mercury EPA 7473 ppm Hg 0.088

Molybdenum EPA 200.8 ppm Mo -2

Nickel EPA 200.8 ppm Ni 3

Phosphorus EPA 200.7 ppm P -6

Potassium EPA 200.7 ppm K 347

Selenium EPA 200.8 ppm Se -2

Silicon EPA 200.7 ppm Si 8155

Silver EPA 200.8 ppm Ag -0.6

Sodium EPA 200.7 ppm Na 771

Strontium EPA 200.7 ppm Sr 160

Sulfur EPA 200.7 ppm S 1928

Thallium EPA 200.8 ppm TL -0.3

Titanium EPA 200.7 ppm Ti 436

Vanadium EPA 200.7 ppm V 11.9

Zinc EPA 200.8 ppm Zn 11.4

Negative values indicate None Detected and the absolute value is the Reporting Limit.
# attribtable--OUTPUT

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-04	&"Arial,Bold"&9Draft	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout Feb. 15, 2023
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

D.C. KING, A.Y. MARKS, B.T. PALMER

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JONATHAN J. OTTO

ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN THIRD CLASS (E

- 4), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201500410

GENERAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 27 August 2015

. Military Judge: CDR Robert P. Monahan, Jr., JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: Commander, Navy Region Mid

- Atlantic,

Norfolk, VA

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CDR A.R. House, JAGC,

USN

. For Appellant: CAPT Bree A. Ermentrout, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

29 February 2016

---------------------------------------------------

OPINION OF THE COURT

---------------------------------------------------

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as

approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Cour t

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court